Talk:Merbromin

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Misc

Merbromin is the correct name for Mercurochrome (which is a trade name) thus I moved the merbromin data from Mercurochrome to its own entry and added a redirect from its chemical name. The problem that I am having is that merbromin is the active component AND the tincture's name so I need to think anout the organization of the page a bit more... It's late, I'm tired so I'll sleep on it and edit it tomorrow. I noticed that the CAS number link no longer works but I don't want to lose that information... I'll see if I can't track down the new link and fix it also... arfon 07:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was unable to find anything about merbromin from ATSDR. But from http://caligula.bcs.deakin.edu.au/bcs_admin/msds/msds_docs/Mercurochrome.pdf , the CAS number for merbromin is 129-16-8.

Proposed merge with Mercurochrome

Sounds like a good idea to me. Jordan Brown 20:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Canada

In Canada, many products are branded as "mercurochrome" but in fact, contain a totally different formula. For instance, I have bought a bottle of "mercurochrome" of the Personnelle brand (sold in the Jean Coutu pharmacies. It contains Chlorhexidine Gluconate 0.05%. It is also written on the bottle, "Mercury free first aid solution". 70.83.220.148 (talk) 02:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merthiolate

The article mentions Merthiolate, but the set of links and categories for topicals does not include it. I think it should be in the section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.161.157.240 (talk) 13:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

removed vandalism 98.116.81.202 (talk) 16:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.102.141 (talk) [reply]

Sources

I noticed the only source listed is from "The Straight Dope," a column which has no sources listed. Use a primary source instead. Helliott9 (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appearance and Structure

This is a bit WP:OR - but all I have. It's down a green solid. It's not. You have two choices...

  • Red powder - when it's relatively pure
  • green glass - when it's not.

I did months of development when it was made by May & Baker in the 80's. My main recollections are

  • The substitution pattern of the bromines are dubious - It could be 2,7 - it might be 4,5. There was a paper that said that the original claimed structure (I think 2,7) was wrong.
  • In order to get the green glass (as per BPC specification, the stage 1 bromination had to be done fast - that gives a mix of 5 compounds with 0,1,2,3,4 bromines ( 4= Eosin Y ). Thus the final product being a mixture of 5 compounds does not crystallize but dries to a green glass which shatters when hit.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources / cleanup

I removed some unsourced statements, added sources here required, and removed the seemingly completely made up comment -- at least, I could find no sources for it -- about it being "banned from British gymnastics" Nandesuka (talk) 03:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old cut-and-paste move from Mercurochrome

In March 2006, the content of Mercurochrome was cut from that article and pasted into this one. This still has yet to be fixed. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 01:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Merbromin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ban on sale in USA and other countries

Of the 3 citations for "... it is no longer sold in Switzerland, Brazil, France, Germany, and the United States due to its mercury content" (second line of article), only the first is a non-wikipedia source, and that only mentions that Merbromin can no longer be used for initial introduction as an antiseptic, and that citation is only for USA. Citations for other countries, and better citations for USA are needed. - Mukt (talk) 22:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mercurochrome does not contain chromium, but should we say so?

The -chrome in Mercurochrome most likely refers to its intense color, as in Chromosphere or Kodachrome. The element Chromium, many of whose compounds are brightly colored, is a significant environmental toxin as well as a micronutrient. While it is possible that some people may think the obsolete antiseptic merbromin, commonly called by its trade name Mercurochrome, contains chromium, and thus be tempted to avoid it for that reason as well as for the mercury that it does contain, or less plausibly tempted to eat tiny amounts of merbromin to avoid chromium deficiency, I can find no evidence of this misconception on the Internet, e.g. by a Google search on "chromium mercurochrome" and in particular no reliable secondary source mentioning this misconception. For that reason I believe that the misconception should not even be mentioned, as doing so may do more harm than good, by the principle of WP:BEANS.CharlesHBennett (talk) 13:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Joel B. Lewis: I see your point about how the source I provided doesn't indicate positively the absence of chromium in the compound, but we've already identified it in the infobox as C20H8Br2HgNa2O6, which includes Cr nowhere in it. So: there's no need to the same fact every time we mention it, and do you really consider WP:Synthesis to apply to a case of "If its chemical composition includes only things that aren't X, then it doesn't contain X"? I think this is the sort of trivial deduction covered by Wikipedia:These are not original research#Simple calculations. Largoplazo (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Largoplazo: Thanks for your message, and thanks also for finding a source for the etymology (chrome = color), because I think that regardless of what we decide about chromium that is worth including. Here is my view: To me, a sentence like the one in question comes off as very textbook-y or pedagogical -- something I would say in lecture to try to stave off confusion among students. ("The guy was named George Stokes, so it's Stokes' Theorem, not Stoke's" or whatever.) I don't think it's really possible to prevent misconceptions this way, but also I don't really think it's the job of an encyclopedia to do that: as you point out, we say exactly what the thing is made of, so anyone who wonders "is it named after chromium?" can just go look it up in this very article. Sometimes possible misconceptions are sufficiently common that someone has written something in a RS about the misconception itself, and that to me is the sign that the misconception deserves mention as a misconception. In this case: telling the reader what it's made of and where its name comes from are clearly encyclopedic goals, and can be supported with sources; additionally staving off a possible confusion that someone once had does not seem like an encyclopedic goal. What do you think? --JBL (talk) 14:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough! Largoplazo (talk) 16:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forms protective scab

In my experience, merbromin forms a protective scab on the surface of wounds, allowing them to heal quicker and free of infection. I wonder if there is a reference for this scab-generating effect that could be added. I still use a 25 cent bottle of mercurochrome that I bought sometime in the 1970s, and I treasure this tiny bottle. The FDA has made some really stupid decisions, IMO, including the elimination of merbromin and kaopectate (kaolin and pectin), both of which were effective and safe when used properly. We'll probably never get such useful medicines back again. David Spector (talk) 12:00, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience merbromin is a toxic and abrasive mercury compound and if I caught granny with a bottle of it near my kids I'd move her to a home under the sea, since her brain has obviously become a jellyfish. 124.169.150.131 (talk) 02:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Merbromin"